Phytosociological Analysis in Semi-Arid Region of India: a Case Study from Yadgir District, Karnataka

Phytosociological Analysis in Semi-Arid Region of India: A Case Study from Yadgir District, Karnataka

K. Bhaskar1, 2 and L. Rajanna3

1Centre for Ecological Economics and Natural Resources, Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India 2Research & Development Centre, Bharathiar University, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India 3Department of Botany, Bangalore University, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India

KEYWORDS Dry Land Ecosystem. Plant Diversity. Species Richness. Species Utilization. Vegetation Analysis

ABSTRACT The present study covers structure, composition and distribution of vegetation in semi-arid ecosystem in respect of trees and shrubs and inventory of herbs. In the primary vegetation layer the highest density (individuals/hectare) was recorded for Prosopisjuli flora (133 individuals/ha) lowest for the species namely Dalbergia sissoo and Terminalia catappa (0.21 individuals/ha). The vegetation composition consists of 26.7 percent of tree species, 17.2 percent of shrubs, 42.5 percent herbs and 13.3 percent climbers forms the structure of natural ecosystems. The people of study region are using the plant diversity for various purposes for example medicine (78 species), fuel wood (26), fodder (23), edible (17), oral hygiene (11), timber (9), and other uses (3). Diversity indices for studied in semi-arid ecosystem found less than that of other ecosystems in India.The area available under forest cover is very less, that is, 3.64 percent of the studied landscape. Hence, strong conservation methods are required to protect the biodiversity for sustainable socio-ecological development.

INTRODUCTION total geographical area falling in the semi-arid zone receives less than 750 millimetres of annu- Arid and semi-arid regions come under dry al rainfall with frequent drought conditions. landwhich are characterized by light inconsis- The varieties of factors were found to be tent rainfall of up to 700 mm per annum, periodic responsible for change in the vegetation dy- droughts and different associations of vegeta- namics in semi-arid regions. Food and agricul- tive cover and soils. The low amount of rainfall ture organizations reported that the population along with uncertainty in its pattern adversely growth of semi-arid region and poverty are the affects the development of dry land ecosystems. underlying factors determining land degrada- The arid and semi-arid regions constitute about tion and biodiversity loss in the semi-arid re- 65 percent of area of total dryland in the world gions. The existing plant diversity plays an im- (Nautiyal et al 2015). However, in India about 53 portant role in securing livelihood of the people percent land comes under arid and semi-arid re- and support the requirement of fodder, fuel gions which are highly vulnerable to climate wood, timber, non-timber forest products (NTF- change. In India, the semi-arid land spreads over Ps) and medicinal plants for the people inhabit- 9, 70,530 km2, of 99 districts of 11 states, this is ed in the dryland (Omuto et al. 2010). These dry- 37 percent of the total geographical area of the land (arid and semi-arid regions) cover more than country. In Karnataka, semi-arid land spreads more than 40 percent area of the earth surface over 1, 39,000 sq km, which is about 6 percent of and have the climatic uncertainties (Sharma the total geographical area of the country (Kalsi 2003) and the major distinguishing feature is the 2007). Therefore, Karnataka is second highest less rain fall and high temperature. The climatic state in terms of aridity after the Rajasthan (Mur- uncertainties and associated variations make the thy and Indumati 2011) where two-thirds of the differences between structures and functioning of the natural ecosystem therefore, socio-eco- *Address for correspondence: logical sustainability of the people living in K. Bhaskar semi-arid landscapes face lots of challenges.To Research Scholar, study the ecosystems, the phytosociological Bharathiar University, Coimbatore 641 046, Tamil Nadu, India studies are helpful in providing the information E-mail: [email protected] on vegetation composition, diversity of species, PHYTOSOCIOLOGICAL STUDIES OF SEMI-ARID REGION 15 distribution and comparison among the habitat are available on the phytosociological attributes types/ecosystems (Enright et al. 2005; Reddy et of ecosystems (Sharma and Pandey 2010; Pra- al. 2008; Kong et al. 2009). Various biotic and bakaran and Greeshma 2012).Therefore, in this abiotic factors influence the diversity and distri- endeavour, the present study was undertaken bution of the species in the natural ecosystems in the semi-arid region located in Karnataka of (Bargali et al. 2013). According to Nowak et al. India to explore the species diversity, distribu- (2017), one of the major factors for determining tion and their richness in the natural ecosys- the species composition in an ecosystem is soil tems along with landscape dynamics. salinity and humidity, elevation, slope and as- The objectives of the study were (i) To study pect and ecological studies revels that specific the species in their compositions, density, abun- plant communities like ferns and rare species dance, frequency, basal area and important value adaptations and also soil contaminated with el- index (IVI), and (ii) To prepare the diversity indi- evated levels of Co, Cu, Pb, Ni and Zn (Median- ces for the species of the semi-arid ecosystems. ista and Labay 2017). Therefore, study on phytosociological attributes is important aspect to Study Area and Climate be taken into consideration in ecosystem research (Enright et al. 2005; Kong et al. 2009). In forest ecosystems studies the phytosociologi- The study region is located in Yadgir district cal studies are foremost requirement for under- of Karnataka, India (16°72’58"N latitude and standing structure and up to certain extent the 76°74’19"E longitude), bound on the west by functional attributes in relation with human and Bijapur district, on the north by Gulbarga dis- plant interactions. The detailed database on trict, on the east by Maheboobnagar district of phytosociological studies is available for rich Telangana and on the south by Raichur district and diverse landscapes of India viz., the Hima- of Karnataka (Nautiyal et al. 2015). The average laya and the Western Ghats (Ralhan et al. 1982; elevation of the study area is 426 m from sea Saxena and Singh 1982). However, semi-arid re- level. The landscape which was taken for study gions remained isolated and only few studies is given in Figure 1. The temperature ranges be-

India Karnataka

Yadgir

Yadgir Shahpur

Shorapur

0 5 10 20 30 40

Kilometers

Fig. 1. Geographical location of the study area 16 K. BHASKAR AND L. RAJANNA tween 44oC in summer to 24oC in winter and rela- The basal cover has calculated using the tive humidity varies from 20 percent during sum- following formula. Basal cover of a single tree mer to 60 percent during winter. The average BC=π*r2 rainfall is 650 mm and the normal rainy days range r=radius, π=3.14 between 42-50 days in a year. Species diversity (H´) has computed by the Shannon and Weiner (1963) information index METHODOLOGY as follows (eqn. 1): ni ni The study was carried dry deciduous forest H = log of Yadgir district in all the habitats. To analyse ∑ N n N the vegetation ecology in the study region, stan- Where, Ni is the total density value for spe- dard methodswere followed (Cottam and Curtis cies i and N is the sum of the density values of 1956; Ralhanet al. 1982; Saxena and Singh 1982; all the species in that site. Nayak et al. 2000; Nautiyal and Kaechele 2008; Beta diversity (b) among all the studied for- Hailu 2017). Transects were laid down starting ests was calculated following the method given from a base of the study area to end of the veg- by Whittaker (1975). etation zone in each selected site for various Sc habitat types. In each habitat, 30 quadrates in β = ∑ S triplicates (trees (10m x10m) shrubs (5m x5m) and Simpson’s Index (D) measures the probabil- herbs (1mx1m)) were plotted for primary data ity that two individuals randomly selected from collection (Nautiyal et al. 2015). The circumfer- a sample will belong to the same species (or some ence at breast height (CBH) was for tree species category other than species). at 1.37 m from ground level (Nautiyal et al. 2015). ∑n(n −1) However, in the case of shrubs, circumference D = N was measured at 10 cm above ground level. In- N = Total number of species, n= number of dividuals with diameter up to 3cm considered as species in one community seedlings and young tree with diameter of 3cm Evenness: Evenness is a measure of the rel- to 13cm and measureable about four feet above ative abundance of the different species making the ground considered as saplings. Herbarium up the richness of an area. specimens were prepared for all the species following standard guidelines given by Botanical RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Survey of India (BSI) (Nautiyal et al. 2015). The primary data collected were analysed for fre- The quantitative analysis on plant diversity quency, density, abundance, and density/hect- of semi-arid region is essential to understand are. Basal area, relative dominance, relative fre- natural distribution and associated anthropo- quency and relative dominance were calculated genic pressure in such human dominating land- following the method given by Phillips (1959). scapes. With the help of detailed phytosocio- The sum of the relative dominance, frequency logical study, a total of 232 plant species be- and dominance gives the importance value indi- longing to 69 families consisting of 56 species ces (IVI) for various species (Curtis 1959). Spe- of trees, 36 shrubs, 112 herbs and 28 climbers cies richness, concentration of dominance (cd), were recorded from the study region.Most of evenness and similarity index were analysed them provide fodder, fuel wood, timber, medi- (MacArthur 1965; Whittaker 1975). cine to the people of the study region. Phytoso- Sample plots have laid down randomly in all ciological attributes of trees and shrubs are giv- the habitats in the region density was calculat- en in the Tables 1 and 2. Dry lands are home for ed using the following the methods given in many plants, animals and variety of agricultural Nautiyal and Kaechele (2008). The density was crops as well 35 percent of world’s human pop- calculated as ulation (Safriel and Adeel 2000). In keeping the xn d = population pressure in view, in arid and semi- n arid lands, due to high pressure and highly ex- d= Density, xn = Total number of individual tracting natural resources from the ecosystem of a species in all quadrates such as mainly fuel, timber, edible and medicine, N=total number of quadrates studied the structure and composition in biodiversity PHYTOSOCIOLOGICAL STUDIES OF SEMI-ARID REGION 17

Table 1: Density, basal area, important value indices, abundance, frequency, nature and utilization pattern of different tree species occurred in semi-arid region (P= planted species, N = naturally regenerating species)

S. Species name Density Basal Abund- Freq- IVI Nature Uses No. ha-1 cover ance uency (cm2)

1 Acacia auriculiformis 1.15 1.1 0.37 1.15 2.0 P Fu A. Cunh. exBenth. 2 Acacia farnesiana (L.) 0.7 0.03 0.1 0.7 0.5 N Fu 3 Acacia leucophloea (Roxb.) 1.6 1.2 0.3 1.6 2.6 N Fu, Ti Willd. 4 Acacia nilotica sub sp. indica 12.7 7.3 1.1 10.5 17.1 N Ti, Fu, (L.) Willd M, Fo 5 Aegle marmelos (L.) Corr. 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.7 1.2 N Fu, M 6 Albizial ebbeck (L.) Benth. 1.1 0.4 0.3 0.8 1.1 N & P Fu, fo 7 Annonas quamosa L. 53.7 1.3 2.7 20.1 28.4 N Ed, 8 Azadirachta indica A. JUSS. 16.4 10.8 1.2 12.0 22.1 N & P Me, Fu, Fo, Ti, Worship 9 Bauhinia racemosa Lam. 2.5 2.1 0.5 2.4 4.2 P Fu 10 Borassusf labellifer L. 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.9 N Edible, Mis 11 Cordia wallichii G.DON 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.4 N Fu 12 Carica papaya L. 0.5 0.05 0.2 0.3 0.4 P Edible 13 Cassia fistula L. 4.2 0.5 0.4 2.6 3.1 N & P Me, Fu 14 Cassia javanica L. 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.5 P Fu, Fo 15 Casuarina equisetifolia Forst. 1.4 0.5 0.2 0.6 1.5 P Ti, Fu 16 Chloroxylons wietenia DC. 6.4 1.8 0.4 2.8 4.9 N & P Fu 17 Cocos nucifera L. 0.7 0.8 0.2 0.3 1.2 P Ed, Mis 18 Dalbergia sissoo Roxb. 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.4 N Fu 19 Delonix elata (L.) Gamble. 2.7 1.1 0.4 2.5 3.2 N Fu, Fo 20 Dichrostachys cinerea (L.) 0.3 0.04 0.1 0.3 0.2 N Fu Wt. & Arn. 21 Dolichandrone atrovirens 0.9 0.07 0.3 0.3 0.5 N Fu, M (Heyne) Sprague 22 Eucalyptus globulus Labill. 0.8 1.8 0.1 0.6 2.3 P Ti, Fu, Fo, M Ficusar nottiana (Miq.) Miq. 0.6 0.04 0.1 0.5 0.5 N 24 Ficus benghalensis L. 0.8 1.1 0.2 0.7 1.7 N Fu 25 Ficus racemosa L. 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.5 N Ed, Fu 26 Ficus religiosa L. 5.5 2.1 1.2 4.4 6.3 N & P Fu, M 27 Leucaena leucocephala (Lam.) 26.4 7.7 3.6 7.6 19.9 N Fu, Fo de Wit, Small timber 28 Limonia acidissima L. 0.6 1.4 0.2 0.5 1.9 N Ed, Fu 29 Mangifera indica L. 1.3 3.3 0.4 1.2 4.3 P & N Ed,Fu 30 Millingtonia hortensis L. 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.6 N Fu, Fo, Orname- natal 31 Mimosa intisia L. 0.3 0.02 0.1 0.2 0.2 N Fu 32 Morinda pubescens J. E. Smith 3.7 2.7 0.4 2.0 4.9 N Fu 33 Moringa oleifera Lam. 0.9 0.3 0.1 0.7 1.0 P Ed, M 34 Murraya koenigii (L.) Spreng. 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.7 P Ed, M 35 Parkinsonia aculeata L. 0.9 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.8 N Fu 36 Phoenix sylvestris (L.) Roxb. 8.8 1.7 1.6 3.7 6.3 N Ed, Mis 37 Phyllanthus emblica L. 0.3 0.02 0.1 0.3 0.3 N Ed, M 38 Phyllanthus polyphyllus Willd. 0.5 0.02 0.2 0.3 0.3 N Fu 39 Pithecellobium dulce (Roxb.) Benth. 2.2 1.2 0.7 1.9 3.0 N Ed, Fu 40 Pongamia pinnata (L.) Pierre. 5.7 1.1 0.7 4.7 5.1 N & P Fu, Fo, M 41 Prosopis cineraria (L.) Druce. 1.3 0.8 0.2 1.2 1.8 N Fu, Ti, Worship 18 K. BHASKAR AND L. RAJANNA

Table 1: Contd...

S. Species name Density Basal Abund- Freq- IVI Nature Uses No. ha-1 cover ance uency (cm2) 42 Prosopisjuli flora (Sw.) DC. 133.5 24.5 2.4 54.2 92.5 N Fu, Fo, Small timber 43 Psidium guajava L. 2.1 0.2 0.56 1.4 1.5 P Ed, M 44 Punica granatum L. 0.3 0.01 0.12 0.3 0.2 P Ed, M 45 Samanea saman (Jacq.) Merr. 1.1 1.3 0.2 1.0 2.1 N Fu, Fo 46 Santalum album L. 15.8 1.4 1.7 9.0 11.2 N M, Ti 47 Sapindus aurifolia Vahl. 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.6 N M, Fu 48 Spathodea campanulata Beauv. 0.3 0.7 0.1 0.3 1.03 N Fu 49 Syzygium cumini (L.) Skeels. 3.7 3.7 0.9 3.4 6.8 N Ed, Fu, Ti 50 Tamarindus indica L. 4.6 5.0 1.0 3.7 8.5 N Ed, Fu, Fo, Ti 51 Tectona grandis L. f. 3.5 0.6 0.8 1.6 2.5 P Ti, Fu 52 Terminalia catappa L. 0.2 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.2 P Fu, M 53 Thespesia populnea (L.) 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.7 1.2 N & P Fu Sol. Ex Corr. 54 Thevetia neriifolia Juss. Ex. Steud. 1.4 0.08 0.3 0.5 0.8 N Fu 55 Wrightia tinctoria R. Br. Mem. 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.5 N M, Fu Wern. 56 Ziziphus mauritiana Lam. 8.6 2.3 1.1 7.5 9.1 N Ed, Fu

Note: F- Fuel, Fd- Fodder, M- Medicinal value, T-Timber, Ed-Edible, Mis- Miscellaneous

10 No. of Species

Fabaccae Poaceae Asteraccae Mimosaccae Acanthaceae CyparaceaeVerbenaceae Euphorbiaccae AsclepiadaceaeConvolvulaceae AmaranthaceaeCacsalpinaceae

Family

Fig. 2. Dominant families in the study region PHYTOSOCIOLOGICAL STUDIES OF SEMI-ARID REGION 19

Table 2: Density, basal area, important value indices, abundance, frequency, nature and utilization pattern of different shrubs species occurred in semi-arid region (P = planted species, N = naturally regenerating species)

S. . Species name Density Basal Abund- Freq- IVI Nature Uses No. ha-1 cover ance uency (cm2)

1 Abutilon indicum (L.) Sweet 78.1 10.0 3.9 20.2 28.8 N Fu 2 Agave americana L. 0.9 0.3 0.3 0.7 0.7 N Fencing, Mis 3 Anisomeles malabarica (L.) R. Br. ex Sims 5.6 0.08 1.2 1.7 1.5 N M 4 Balanites aegyptiaca (L.) Delile 23.0 19.0 1.9 11.2 26.7 N Fu, M 5 Cadaba fruticosa (L.) Druce 0.8 0.9 0.1 0.6 1.3 N 6 Calotropis gigantea (L.) R. Br. 7.6 2.5 1.2 6.1 6.1 N M 7 Calotropis procera R. Br. 1.3 0.3 0.4 1.1 0.9 N M 8 Canthium coramandelicum 14.2 3.1 1.4 9.1 8.8 N Ed, Fu (Burm.f.) Alston. 9 Carissa spinarum L. 1.7 0.4 0.2 1.6 1.3 N Ed, Fu 10 Dodonaea viscosa (L.) Jacq. 16.8 2.9 1.8 7.0 8.1 N Fu 11 Euphorbia tirucalli L. 11.9 14.8 1.5 7.2 19.4 N Fu 12 Grewia tenax (Forsk.) 0.9 0.4 0.2 0.8 0.9 N Fu 13 Grewia villosa Willd. 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.4 N Fu 14 Guiland inabonduc L. 3.0 0.5 0.5 2.6 1.9 N Fu 15 Gyrocarpus americanus Jacq. 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.5 N 16 Hibiscus rosa-sinensis L. 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 P Orna- mental 17 Indigofera tinctoria L. 0.3 0.07 0.1 0.3 0.2 N 18 Ipomoea carnea Jacq. 81.5 7.3 8.7 9.2 22.0 N Fu, Mis 19 Jatropha glandulifera Roxb. 0.5 0.07 0.1 0.4 0.3 N M 20 Lantana camara L. 82.6 18.3 2.8 28.9 41.5 N Fu 21 Leonotis nepetaefolia (L.) R.Br. 3.0 0.03 0.3 1.0 0.9 N 22 Maytenus emarginata (Willd.) Ding 0.21 0.01 0.1 0.2 0.1 N Fu 23 Opuntia dillenii (Ker - Gawl.) Haw. 6.8 1.8 1.5 2.7 3.8 N Fencing, Ed 24 Orthosiphon glabratus Benth. 0.8 0.3 0.1 0.6 0.6 N 25 Pavonia zeylanica Cav. 21.6 0.2 2.0 9.0 6.8 N 26 Phyllanthusr eticulatus Poir. 4.6 1.2 1.0 4.3 3.6 N 27 Ricinus communis L. 12.6 1.4 1.9 4.1 4.8 N M, Mis 28 Securinega leucopyrus 2.5 0.5 0.6 2.5 1.9 N Fu (Willd.) Muell. - Arg. 29 Senna auriculata L. 29.5 2.6 1.3 21.0 15.2 N Fu, Fo, M 30 Senna occidentalis L. 185.5 1.8 6.3 28.7 37.6 N M 31 Stachytarphetaindica (L.) Vahl 19.7 0.1 2.4 5.8 5.1 N 32 Streblus asper Lour. 0.5 0.1 0.15 0.4 0.3 N 33 Tephrosia purpurea (L.) Pers. 102.6 0.62 4.2 23.4 23.7 N M 34 Triumfettar homboidea Jacq. 7.9 0.04 1.0 3.9 2.6 N 35 Vitex negundo L. 5.4 5.2 0.9 4.1 7.7 N Fu, M 36 Xanthium indicum DC. 31.5 1.4 1.9 15.6 12.1 N

Note: F- Fuel, Fd- Fodder, M- Medicinal value, T-Timber, Ed-Edible, Mis- Miscellaneous takes place quickly. Vegetation analysis shows as flower, fruit, bark and root. The specimens that the species distribution in the study region were preserved and documented following with is sparse and scanty and the pattern reported to standard methods and identified with profes- be random and contagious (species wise distri- sional taxonomists. In the study area total 63 bution is not presented here). Kong et al. (2009) plant families were recorded and the dominant obtained the similar findings from arid and semi- families based on number of species under each arid ecosystems. family are Euphorbiaceae (21), Fabaceae (21), The plant specimens for all the species were Mimosaceae (19), Asteraceae (16), Poaceae (14), collected withbasic characteristics of plants such Asclepiadaceae (13), Convolvulaceae (13), Acan- 20 K. BHASKAR AND L. RAJANNA

25 16

14 20 12

15 10

8 Basal area

10 6 Number of Species 4 5 2

0 0 <30 cm 31-60 cm 61-90 cm 91-120 cm 12-150 cm

Girth class distribution (cm)

Species Basal area (%)

Fig. 3. Population structure of woody species on the basis of girth class distribution (number of species and basal area) thaceae (11), Amaranthaceae (11), Caesalpinace- density was recorded for Senna occidentalis ae (10), Cyparaceae (9), Verbenaceae (9). On the (185 species ha-1) followed by Tephrosia pur- other hand, similar studies were observed in some purea (102 species ha-1), Lantana camara (82.6 other semi-arid ecosystems; the dominant fami- ha-1), Ipomoea carnea (81.5 ha-1), Abutilon in- lies were recorded as Fabaceae, Euphorbiaceae, dicum (78.1 ha-1) and Senna auriculata (29.5 ha- Cactaceae and Apocynaceae (Silva et al. 2014). 1). The studied semi-arid landscape located in However, among the herbs the dominate family tropical region however, the density, species di- is Poaceae (14) followed by Asteraceae (12). versity and richness in the study area was found Species richness and diversity in a forest less as compared to the other semi-arid and trop- depends on climatic, edaphic and biotic factors ical ecosystems in the country (Ahmed 2012; (Tripathi and Singh 2009). In the study region Rawat et al. 2009; Rawat et al. 2010). Based on among the tree species the density (individuals Important Value Index (IVI) the dominant spe- per hectare) of Prosopis juliflora, 133 trees ha-1 cies in the semi-arid ecosystem was Prosopis is the highest followed by L. Leucocephala (26.4 juliflora (92.5) followed by Annona squamosal trees ha-1), A. indica (16.4 trees ha-1), Santalum (28.4), Azadirachta indica (22.1), Leucaena leu- album (15.8 trees ha-1), A. nillotica (12.7 trees cocephala (19.9), Acacia nillotica (17.1), San- ha-1). The least density was calculated for S. talum album (11.2) and Zizupus mauritiana (9.1), campanulata (0.3 trees ha-1) and Dalbergia sis- Tamarindus indica (8.5), Syzygium cumini (6.8) soo (0.2 trees ha-1). Among the shrubs, highest and Ficus religiosa (6.3) (Table 1). For second-

Table 3: Diversity indices

Diversity indices Trees Shrubs Herbs Climbers

Shannon-wiener index (H’) 0.2 0.4 0.8 0.1 Beta diversity 1.2 1.6 1.8 1.7 Evenness Index 0.04 0.09 0.1 0.01 Simpson’s Index 0.1 0.10 0.1 0.09 Simpson’s Reciprocal Index 5.9 9.6 7.6 11.1 Simpson’s Index of Diversity 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.9 PHYTOSOCIOLOGICAL STUDIES OF SEMI-ARID REGION 21 ary layer Lantana camara with IVI41.5 is domi- Diversity is a combination of two factors, nant species followed by Senna occidentalis the number of species present, referred to as (37.6), Abutilon indicum (28.8), Balanites ae- species richness and the distribution of individ- gyptiaca (26.7), Tephrosia purpurea (23.7), Ip- uals among the species, referred to as evenness omoea carnea (22.0), Euphorbia tirucalli (19.4), or equitability. In the ecosystem high degree of Senna auriculata (15.2), Xanthium indicum species interaction reveals the high species di- (12.1) and Canthium coramandelicum (8.8) (Ta- versity. Low or changing diversity among the ble 2). Lantana camara is exotic weed and in- species indicate stress on ecosystems. The the- vaded almost all habitats of the studied semi- ory of species diversity takes into account in arid ecosystem. Sharma and Pandey (2010) have three different ecological phenomena, that is, found Salvadora oleoides (IVI 24.6) as domi- species richness, relative abundance and com- nant shrub species of arid landscape of Rajas- munity evenness. These parameters can provide tan however, in semi-arid regions highest IVI a structure and composition of ecosystem. The were reported Lantana camara (243.6) by Raw- diversity parameters are depicted in Table 3. at et al. (2009) in semi-arid areas in Punjab and Shannon –Wiener Index of diversity (H) in- Wrightia tinctoria (213.52) by Prabakaran and dicates that species richness (number of spe- Greeshma (2012) in the semi-arid regions of Tamil cies) in the study region and evenness index Nadu. The dominant species (IVI 75.29) in range indicates that species distribution in a particular land of Ethiopia was recorded Eragorostis as- ecosystem Hussein et al. (2014). In the study pera by Hailu (2017) and highest IVI (Ampe- region the highest Shannon-Wiener index was locissus latifolia, 54.4) shrub species recorded obtained for herbs (0.87) followed by shrubs by Pramanik and Das (2015) in Gorumara Na- (0.49), trees (0.22) and climbers (0.1) were found tional Park. The IVI of the species from the study to have least distribution (Table 3). Beta (β) di- region was found quite comparable with the IVI versity represent the amount of compositional of the species in identical ecosystems (Kanade variation in a sample (a collection of sample units) (Whittaker 1975). In the study region the high- et al. 2008; Reddy et al. 2008). However, less est beta diversity had recorded for herbs (1.8) than that reported for other ecosystems of the followed by climbers (1.7), shrub (1.6) and trees country (Bargali et al. 2013; Khali and Bhat 2014; (1.2). Evenness index has recorded highest for Kunwar and Sharma 2004; Rawat et al. 2010; herbs (0.1) then followed by shrubs (0.09), trees Reddy and Ugle 2008; Reddy et al. 2011). (0.042) and climbers (0.01) were reported with The diversity index in the present study least diversity (Table 3). However the highest ranged from 0.2 to 0.8 which is less compared to evenness index has been recorded in other eco- other tropical ecosystems 0.8 to 5.4 (Tripathi and systems 0.7 for agro-forestry and 0.6 in natural Singh 2009; Parejiya et al. 2013). However, the forest system Rawatet al.(2010).There are few species diversity index in Indian forests ranged studies reported that Prosopis juliflorais sig- between 0.8 to 4.1(Parthasarathy et al. 1992).The nificantly effecting on reduction of species rich- low species diversity index suggest for conser- ness, density and evenness of the associated vation of biodiversity, because the region high- plant species beneath them (Keblawya and Ab- ly vulnerable to desertification (Pausas and Aus- delfatah 2014). The data on herbaceous vegeta- tin 2001; Parejiya et al. 2013). At primary and tion is not presented in detail except for some secondary vegetation layer both, the basal cov- parameters. However, in other ecosystems the er and IVI were recorded highest for Prosopis value of tree and shrub layers were reported 2.72 juliflora and Lantana camera respectively. and 3.1 (Nautiyal and Kaechele 2008) and for the Among the trees species 5.6 percent species overall species diversity including trees, shrubs, were less than < 30 cm CBH, 2.6 percent species herbs and climbers the Shannon-Wiener index between 31-60 cm CBH, 4.3 percent species 61- had reported in temperate forests 3.4 (Saxena 90 cm CBH, 7 percent species between 91-120 and Singh 1982), community forest 3.02 (Kun- cm GBH and 14 percent species were found to war and Sharma 2004) and for wood land (4.27). have CBH between 121 and 150 cm (Fig. 3). The However in the present study climbers are rep- girth class interval analysis gives the scenario resents least occurrence (0.1) where in other ec- of the vegetation stand structure in an ecosys- osystem had recorded 0.99 (Tripathi and Singh tem (Reddy et al. 2008). 2009). 22 K. BHASKAR AND L. RAJANNA

Simpson index and Simpson reciprocal index indica and Acacia nillotica were major timber has been used to evaluate the diversity of the species in the present study region, which pro- region. The Simpson’s index ranges between 0 vide a major share of timber requirement for do- and 1; 0 represents infinite diversity and 1 is no mestic use. Farmers have planted Eucalyptus diversity1. In the study region the Simpson in- sp. in their field for commercial selling and used dex values wererecorded for trees 0.8 followed as a timber and fuel wood requirement as well as by shrubs 0.9, herbs 0.8 and climbers 0.9. How- domestic use. Prosopis juliflora is the major ever in other ecosystems the Simpson index di- source for meeting the requirement of domestic versity has been reported 0.8 for entire ecosys- fuel wood. tems including trees, shrubs, herbs and climbers (Kunwar and Sharma 2004). CONCLUSION

Plant Species and Their Uses Plant sociology study is important to understand the structure and composition of vegeta- The flora of the study area contains many tion diversity inthe ecosystems. The results species that have been used in the variety of obtained from conducting the study on diversi- ways apart from the medicinal uses (78 species), ty of plant species along with temporal land- for example timber (9 species), edible fruits (17 scape analysis would serve the purpose of pro- species), fuel wood (26 species), fodder (23 spe- viding baseline information on existing struc- cies), oral hygiene (11) and miscellaneous 3 spe- ture and functioning of ecosystems. In future cies (Nautiyal et al. 2015). The utilization of var- this would enable the researchers for future stud- ious species has been studied in this region and ies on the ecosystems and drivers of change so it is by using questioners and interviewing the that proper strategies could be framed for hu- local people.Traditional Ecological Knowledge man dominating semi-arid ecosystems. With the (TEK) plays an important role in sustainable use help this study it was found that the density of and conservation of biodiversity and has been the species in the semi-arid ecosystems is low proved a time-efficient and cost-effective ap- and the area under vegetation cover is quite low proach (Srivastav et al. 2011). Herbal drugs con- which is declining at faster rate due to variety of stitute a major part in all traditional systems of factors. Hence the conservation methods are medicines and 25 percent of allopathic drugs are required to protect the biodiversity in semi-arid reported from plant origin (Kala et al. 2006). In- region so that objectives of sustainable socio- dia is the seventh largest country in the globe ecological development could be met. A sys- having rich plant diversity with around 47,000 tematic, scientific research is required for pro- species, of which more than 7500 species are viding proper strategies for resource conserva- being used as medicinal plants (Balakumbahan tion, livelihood development and ecosystem et al. 2010). Therefore, the traditional ecological development. knowledge gathered through centuries of expe- rience of human and ecosystems and descend- RECOMMENDATIONS ed from generation to generation need proper documentation along with biodiversity studies 1. Important ex-situ and in-situ plant conserva- (Pfoze et al. 2010). tion methods has been recommended in the In this region, among the shrub species Lan- study to ensure conservation of species di- tana camara and Abutilon indicum found rela- versity in the selected study area (Nautiyal tively higher density and widely distributed. et al. 2015). Lantana camara is invasive species and en- 2. Afforestation is one of the most suitable croached the habitats of many species in the methods for biodiversity conservation in ecosystems. Lantana camara is being used as semiarid landscape as it prevents soil ero- fuel wood and fencing by the people of study sion and helps in sustainable landscape de- region.Catunaregam spinosa used as a fuel velopment. wood and fruits are edible, Calotropis gigantea 3. Semiarid regions shelter many important me- leaves used as medicine reduce the fever, cough, dicinal plants, critically important species and stomach pain and Cassia auriculata bark (key tone species) and for endangered taxa. used as medicine control of diarrhea. Azadirachta It is hence imperative to ensure significant PHYTOSOCIOLOGICAL STUDIES OF SEMI-ARID REGION 23

species diversity is maintained as the area is lenges and Opportunities. Journal of Ethnobiology highly vulnerable (Nautiyal et al. 2015). and Ethnomedicine, 2: 32. Kalsi RS 2007. Status, distribution and management of 4. For better conservation of species diversity Galliformes in arid and semi-arid zones of India. In: in these dry land ecosystems, continuous S Sathyakumar, K Sivakumar (Eds.): Galliformes of monitoring and documentation is necessary India. ENVIS, Wildlife & Protected Areas. Wildlife (Nautiyal et al. 2015). Institute of India, Dehra Dun, 10(1): 101-104. Kanade R, Tadwalkar M, Kushalappa C, Patwardhan A 5. Dry land regions are more vulnerable when 2008. Vegetation composition and woody species compared to other ecosystem; there is hence diversity at Chandoli National Park, Northern West- a need to create adequate awareness pro- ern Ghats, India. Current Science, 95: 637-646. grammes for the local people enlightening Keblawya AE, Abdelfatah MA 2014. Impacts of native and invasive exotic Prosopis congeners on soil prop- them of the various aspects and significance erties and associated flora in the arid United Arab of semiarid ecosystem (Nautiyal et al. 2015). Emirates. Journal of Arid Environments, 100-101: 1-8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Khali M, Bhatt VP 2014. Community structure of Montane forest along the altitudinal gradient in Gar- hwal Himalaya, India. Journal of Ecology and the We are thankful to the Board of Research in Natural Environment, 6: 205-214. Nuclear Sciences (BRNS), Bhabha Atomic Re- Kong W, Sun OJ, Xua W, Chen Y 2009. Changes in search Centre (BARC), Government of India, for vegetation and landscape patterns with altered river providing the full financial support for the con- water-flow in arid West China. Journal of Arid Envi- ronments, 73: 306–313. duct of this research work in semi-arid region of Kumar RM, Sharma SP 2004. Quantitative analysis of India. We acknowledge the role of BRNS, BARC tree species in two community forests of Dolpha for providing the protocol for the research which district, mid-west Nepal. Himalayan Journal of Sci- was developed by the experts of plant and ani- ence, 2: 49-53. MacArthur R 1965. Pattern of species diversity. Bio- mal sciences. We are also thankful to the Spring- logical Reviews, 40: 510-533. er publication, for book on “Biodiversity of Semi- Medianista RL, Labay PM 2017. Phytosuccession and arid Landscape by Sunil Nautiyal, Katari Phytosociology of Plants in Ino-Capayang Mined- Bhaskar and Y D Imran Khan 2015” for provid- out Area for Possible Phytoremediation Activities in Marinduque. 4th International Conference on Civ- ing the necessary data for the research paper. il, Environment and Waste Management (CEWM- 17),23-24January, Manila, Philippines. REFERENCES Murthy PSS, Indumati S 2011. Economic analysis of MGNREGA in the drought prone states of Karnata- Ahmed A 2012. Analysis of forest vegetation in Rani- ka, Rajasthan and irrigation-dominated state of Andhra Pradesh. Agricultural Economics Research khet, Kumaon Himalayas, Uttrakhand, India. Indi- Review, 24: 531-536. an Journal of Fundamental and Applied Life Sci- Nautiyal S, Kaechele H 2008. Fuel switching from wood ences, 2: 16-23. to LPG can benefit the environment! Environmen- Balakumbahan R, Rajamani K, Kumanan K 2010. tal Impact Assessment Review, 28: 523-532. Acorus calamus: An overview. Journal of Medicinal Nautiyal S, Bhaskar K, Khan YDI 2015. Biodiversity Plants Research, 4: 2740-2745. of Semiarid Landscape: Baseline Study for Under- Bargali K, Bisht P, Khan A, Rawat YS 2013. Diversity standing the Impact of Human Development on Ec- and regeneration status of tree species at Nainital osystem. Switzerland: Springer Cham. Catchment, Uttarakhand, India. International Jour- nal of Biodiversity and Conservation, 5: 270-280. Nayak SNV, Swamy HR, Nagaraj BC, Rao, U, Chan- Cottam G, Curtis JT 1956. The use of distance mea- drashekara UM 2000. Farmers’ attitude towards sus- sures in phytosociological sampling. Ecology, 37: tainable management of Soppina betta forests in 451-460. Sringeri area of the Western Ghats, South India. For- Curtis JT 1959. The Vegetation of Wisconsin: An Ordi- est Ecology and Management, 132: 223-224. nation of Plant Communities. Madison, Winconsin, Nowak A, Nobis M, Nowak S, Gêbala M, Nobis A 2017. USA: University of Wisconsin Press. Phytosociology and ecology of deciduous forests in Enright NJ, Miller BP, Akhter 2005. Desert vegetation Tajikistan (Middle Asia). Phytocoenologia, 47: 67– and vegetation-environment relationships in Kirthar 94. National Park, Sindh, Pakistan. Journal of Arid Omuto CT, Vargas RR, Alim MS, Paron P 2010. Mixed- Environments, 61: 397-418. effects modelling of time series NDVI-rainfall rela- Hailu H 2017. Analysis of vegetation phytosociologi- tionship for detecting human-induced loss of vege- cal characteristics and soil physico-chemical condi- tation cover in Dry-lands. Journal of Arid Environ- tions in Harishin Rangelands of Eastern Ethiopia. ments, 74: 1552-1563. Land, 4: 2-17. Parejiya NB, Detroja SS, Panchal NS 2013. Vegetation Kala CP, Dhyani PP, Sajwan BS 2006. Developing the analysis at Bandiyabedi forest in Surendranagar dis- Medicinal Plants Sector in Northern India: Chal- trict of Gujarat state of India. International Journal 24 K. BHASKAR AND L. RAJANNA

of Life Science Biotechnology and Pharma Re- of the Lahaul valley, north western Himalaya, India. search, 2: 241-247. I Forest Biogeosciences and Forestry, 3: 65-71. Parthasarathy N, Kinbal, V Kumar L 1992. Plant Spe- Reddy SC, Babar S, Amarnath G, Pattanaik C 2011. cies Diversity and Human Impact in the Tropical Structure and floristic composition of tree stand in Wet Evergreen Forests of Southern Western Ghats. tropical forest in the Eastern Ghats of northern Indo-French Workshop on Tropical Forest Ecosystem, Andhra Pradesh, India. Journal of Forestry Research, Natural Functioning and Anthropogenic Impact, 22: 491-500. French Institute, Pondicherry, 26-27 November. Reddy SC, Ugle P, Murthy MSR, Sudhakar S 2008. Quan- Pausas JG, Austin MP 2001. Patterns of plant species titative structure and composition of tropical for- richness in relation to different environments: An ests of Mudumalai Wildlife Sanctuary, Western Ghats, appraisal. Journal of Vegetation Science, 12: 153- India. Taiwania, 53: 150-156. 166. Reddy SC, Ugle P 2008. Tree species diversity and Pfoze NL,Chhetry GKN, Bidyalakshm CL, Premila distribution patterns in tropical forest of Eastern DA2010. Indigenous traditional cultivation practic- Ghats, India: A case study. Life Science Journal, 5: 87-93. es of the MAO ethnic tribe under Senapati District Safriel Adeel Z 2000. Ecosystems and Human Well-be- in Manipur. Assam University Journal of Science & ing: Current State and Trend. Dryland Systems-UNEP Technology, 5: 105-108. Report, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Phillips EA 1959. Methods of Vegetation Study. USA: Chapter 22, pp. 625-656. Henry Holt and Company, Inc. Silva FKG, Lopes SF, Lopez LCS, Melo JIM, Trovao Pramanik BK, Das D 2015. Priliminary phytosocio- DMBM 2014. Patterns of species richness and con- logical study of Medicinal Plants Conservation Area servation in the Caatinga along elevational gradi- (MPCA) at forests of Buxa Tiger Reserve (BTR) ents in a semi-arid ecosystem. Journal of Arid Envi- and Gorumara National Park. IOSR Journal of En- ronments, 110: 47-52. vironmental Science, Toxicology and Food Tech- Tripathi KP, Singh B 2009. Species diversity and veg- nology, 9: 64-77. etation structure across various strata in natural and Rawat L, Manhas RK, Kholiya D, Kamboj SK 2009. plantation forests in Katerniaghat Wildlife Sanctu- Structure of understorey vegetation in native and ary, North India. Tropical Ecology, 501: 191-200. exotic plantations of semi-arid regions of Punjab, Whittaker RH 1975. Community and Ecosystem. 2nd India. Nature and Science, 7: 79-85. Edition. New York: Macmilllan Publishing Co. Rawat YS, Vishvakarma SCR, Oinam SS, Kuniyal JC2010. Diversity, distribution and vegetation as- Paper received for publication on June 2017 sessment in the Jahlmanal watershed in cold desert Paper accepted for publication on March 2018